BACKGROUND: The Omron HEM-9000AI is the first automated tonometer to provide an estimate of central SBP (cSBP), which is considered to be more predictive of cardiovascular events than brachial pressure. However, considerable differences between the cSBP estimate of Omron and that of SphygmoCor have been reported, but not explained. This study assesses the sources of differences between both cSBP estimates and provides a handle on which estimate is closest to reality. METHOD: For this purpose, aortic cSBP derived from calibrated carotid SBP was used as device- and algorithm-independent reference. Radial, brachial and carotid applanation tonometry were performed in 143 black South Africans, aged 39-91 years. Each individual was measured with an Omron HEM-9000AI and a SphygmoCor. RESULTS: When using both devices as advocated by their manufacturers, the corresponding cSBP estimates correlated strongly (r = 0.99, P < 0.001), but the Omron estimate was 18.8 (4.3) mmHg higher than the SphygmoCor estimate. Aortic SBP was in between both estimates: 11.7 (5.5) mmHg lower than cSBP-Omron and 7.1 (5.0) mmHg higher than cSBP-SphygmoCor. Alternative calibration of the radial SphygmoCor-curves with radial instead of brachial pressures yielded a cSBP that was 3.0 (4.2) mmHg lower than aortic SBP. The shape of the recorded pressure waves was similar in both devices: less than 5% of the observed cSBP difference was caused by differences in wave shape. CONCLUSION: The results from this study demonstrate that the considerable difference between the central pressure estimates of Omron HEM-9000AI and SphygmoCor is due to algorithm differences, and suggest that the overestimation by Omron HEM-9000AI is larger than the underestimation by SphygmoCor.
BACKGROUND: The Omron HEM-9000AI is the first automated tonometer to provide an estimate of central SBP (cSBP), which is considered to be more predictive of cardiovascular events than brachial pressure. However, considerable differences between the cSBP estimate of Omron and that of SphygmoCor have been reported, but not explained. This study assesses the sources of differences between both cSBP estimates and provides a handle on which estimate is closest to reality. METHOD: For this purpose, aortic cSBP derived from calibrated carotid SBP was used as device- and algorithm-independent reference. Radial, brachial and carotid applanation tonometry were performed in 143 black South Africans, aged 39-91 years. Each individual was measured with an Omron HEM-9000AI and a SphygmoCor. RESULTS: When using both devices as advocated by their manufacturers, the corresponding cSBP estimates correlated strongly (r = 0.99, P < 0.001), but the Omron estimate was 18.8 (4.3) mmHg higher than the SphygmoCor estimate. Aortic SBP was in between both estimates: 11.7 (5.5) mmHg lower than cSBP-Omron and 7.1 (5.0) mmHg higher than cSBP-SphygmoCor. Alternative calibration of the radial SphygmoCor-curves with radial instead of brachial pressures yielded a cSBP that was 3.0 (4.2) mmHg lower than aortic SBP. The shape of the recorded pressure waves was similar in both devices: less than 5% of the observed cSBP difference was caused by differences in wave shape. CONCLUSION: The results from this study demonstrate that the considerable difference between the central pressure estimates of Omron HEM-9000AI and SphygmoCor is due to algorithm differences, and suggest that the overestimation by Omron HEM-9000AI is larger than the underestimation by SphygmoCor.
Authors: Carmel M McEniery; John R Cockcroft; Mary J Roman; Stanley S Franklin; Ian B Wilkinson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Paolo Palatini; Edoardo Casiglia; Jerzy Gąsowski; Jerzy Głuszek; Piotr Jankowski; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Francesca Saladini; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Valérie Tikhonoff; Luc Van Bortel; Wiktoria Wojciechowska; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2011-12-07